Lifetime portraits of Peter the Great. Lifetime portraits of Peter I Paintings of Peter 1 and artists

Valentin Aleksandrovich Serov is a master of creating paintings on a historical theme. In his works, he emphasized the greatness of the Russian people and their difficult fate, and glorified great statesmen. The painting “Peter 1” is a vivid example of this.

History of creation

Famous book publisher I.N. Knebel was preparing to release a series of books on Russian history. Being familiar with Serov, he suggested that the artist paint a picture on a historical theme, which could illustrate one of the chapters. Serov responded with joy because the artist had long admired the personality.

This was followed by a series of sketches and sketches. V. Serov sought to convey the greatness of Peter and the city he created. So in 1907 the painting “Peter 1” was created.

Description of the picture

The background of the picture illustrates the panorama of St. Petersburg. The river and the buildings and structures lined up along it look like scenery against which the figure of the king is exalted. There are no buildings yet - only the foundations of the buildings are visible, there is no embankment - only earth has been poured in its place.

In fact, the one depicted on the canvas will be built a decade after the death of Peter. By depicting him, Serov emphasized how the tsar’s projects even after his departure. Likewise, the ships that are visible in the distance raise their sails only in the king’s thoughts. This is just the beginning, a prototype of the Admiralty.

The Emperor steps heavily and confidently. His whole figure is directed forward, into the future. The wind blows in his face, but he continues to walk. The royal Peter 1 leads a group of people. Serov’s painting emphasizes his greatness in contrast with the bent figures of chilled nobles, wrapped in warm clothes. They hide their faces from the rain. The features are indistinguishable; they follow the king as a whole.

Details and symbolism

The artist’s work very accurately conveys the atmosphere of reforms and transformations, the scale of which is still impressive. The painting “Peter 1” was made without the use of bright colors and shades. This emphasizes the harsh reality of those times. There are few small details - the main focus is on the main character. The details of the clothing and decoration of Peter, the great reformer, are drawn. The tightly stuffed pockets especially stand out. This is a symbol of the sovereign’s involvement not only in the design of the city, but also in its direct creation.

Interesting from the point of view of artistic expression is a cow that drinks water from a river. Metaphorically, it conveys the everyday life that settled people establish. You can guess that the Baltic is very close by the seagulls soaring in the sky. Access to the sea means an expansion of trade space and a prospect for the economic development of the state. All the details that the painting “Peter 1” conveys indicate the beginning of a new stage in the development of Russia, the irreversibility of change. However, there is no pathos in the depiction of Peter; there is the strength and power of a ruler leading the entire country into the future.

We examined Serov's work "Peter 1". Paintings by artists who worked in the same genre noticeably fade against its background. The greatness of the ruler is skillfully conveyed in the famous masterpiece.

In this essay we will talk about two paintings, equally famous both in the history of French and Russian art. These are portraits of Peter I and Catherine I by the famous French portrait painter Jean-Marc Nattier. Their fame is due, on the one hand, to their high quality and the fact that they are very representative examples of ceremonial French portraiture, which in the 18th century retained the features of solemnity and representativeness characteristic of similar works of the previous century. On the other hand, the fact that they are of paramount importance in the iconography of Peter and Catherine. In addition, both paintings are undisputed masterpieces in Nattier’s work.

From an iconographic point of view, the portrait of Catherine is more interesting. If the image of Peter is significantly idealized by the artist and even theatricalized to some extent, then the portrait of his wife seems to more directly convey the essence of the person depicted.

According to the descriptions of contemporaries, both Russian and foreigners, Catherine was not a woman of brilliant beauty, but pretty. She, apparently, possessed some kind of inner charm that impressed even the noble guests who came to Russia.

It is known that she had a firm and strong character with the ability to be soft and self-possessed. She was the only person capable of taming Peter's severe outbursts of anger and distracting him from the attacks of gloom that sometimes attacked him. Catherine could not be denied intelligence and some kind of innate rationality, expressed in the fact that she managed to do exactly what was most necessary at the moment. These properties appear quite clearly in her letters addressed to both Peter and other persons.

Many of these qualities were expressed in one way or another in Nattier’s portrait. Naturally, when creating the image of the Russian queen, the artist tried to identify the positive features of Catherine. Her pettiness, rudeness, even cruelty, also noted by her contemporaries who met her, were not reflected in the portrait created by the artist. But what is put into it is not, as is often the case, fiction.

Nattier portrays Catherine as still young with a rustic but pleasant face, illuminated by a friendly smile. Catherine’s dark eyes look softly and seriously, her face is by no means devoid of expression and thought, her image is distinguished by some kind of unobtrusively emphasized grandeur. Typically, Nattier’s female images are striking in their lack of any individual characteristics and complete thoughtlessness. Nattier is the creator of this type of portrait, characteristic of the mid-century.

Our portrait, like all works of this time, is somewhat mannered, but to a more moderate extent than others. There is an ease and freedom in it, clearly dictated by the character of the model.

Catherine is smartly and richly dressed. The accessories surrounding her are lush and somewhat heavy. The portrait is emphatically official, depicting the empress of a powerful country with which all of Europe reckons. Probably, based on the terms of the order, Nattier from the very beginning sets himself the goal of portraying her as such.

The history of this very famous portrait is well known and documented. It was painted before the portrait of Peter in 1717 in Holland.

Peter I visited France this spring. The trip had great political significance. Previous attempts to establish friendly relations with France during the lifetime of Louis XIV were unsuccessful. The aging king treated the young, rising Russian state with suspicion and apprehension and did not want to meet with its king. After the death of Louis XIV, Peter renewed his attempts at rapprochement, in which he succeeded. He arrived in Paris on a semi-official visit to conduct negotiations of a wide variety of nature. Catherine remained in Holland, in The Hague. The evil tongues of his contemporaries claimed that Peter insisted on this because of the too free manner of demeanor that was characteristic of the queen. If this style, with a stretch, was suitable for democratic Holland, then it was in no way acceptable for the French court with its outwardly strict etiquette. It seems to me that this was not the case at all. Peter, himself not distinguished by the sophistication of his upbringing in the European sense of the word, hardly demanded it from others, in particular from Catherine. During her stay in Holland, the queen carried out a number of his quite business-like assignments. However, this has nothing to do with our topic. All that is important to us is that Catherine was in The Hague and that J.-M. came there to complete the portrait of the queen ordered by Peter. Nattier. Some time later, Nattier was summoned by Peter from The Hague to Paris to paint his portrait this time. There, the very good attitude of the tsar towards the artist, which was created at the first acquaintance, deteriorated, since Nattier violated the existing agreement with Peter and refused to go with him to St. Petersburg, frightened by the most fantastic fables told about Russia.

This is, in brief, the history of portrait painting, repeated everywhere.

Everything stated seems clear and distinct. Each fact is confirmed by many documents. The entire study of portraits boils down, it would seem, to taking into account the information available about them. However, while reading through various documents of the 18th and 19th centuries, I suddenly discovered that they contradict each other, and the objective data of the portraits contradict them.

As was said, in the halls of the Hermitage there hangs a large elegant portrait of Catherine I, it has a clear and extensive signature: Peint a la Haye par Nattier le Jeune a 1717, that is - Painted in The Hague by Nattier the Younger in 1717. Everything is clear and clear, not raises no doubts and has long been a textbook truth.

And here is what the daughter of the artist Nattier, Madame Toke, writes in her memoirs about her father: “He (Nattier) barely had time to finish the portrait when the queen wrote such praises about this image to the king, who was in Paris at that time, that the king wished him as much as possible to see sooner, he ordered Mr. Nattier to immediately return to Paris and bring with him a portrait of the Empress, which was done. Chance decided that on the evening of the portrait's arrival, the king had dinner with the Duke d'Anten. The enthusiasm that aroused in the king the extraordinary similarity of the portrait forced him, despite the fact that only the head had been completed, to take the portrait with him to dinner, where he was installed under a canopy, right in the banquet hall. The very next day, Mr. Nattier began to paint a portrait of the king himself, with which the latter was as pleased as with his other works...” ( Mme Tocque. Abrege de la vie de J.-M. Nattier. Memoires inedits sur la vie et les ouvrages de l "Academie royale, t. II. Paris, 1854, pp. 352-354.). Next comes the story of how Nattier did not dare to go to Russia and how Peter was angry with him for this. At the end of the story about their relationship there is another paragraph that is extremely interesting to us: “...The king was so offended by this refusal that, in order to show his dissatisfaction to the artist, he demanded the unexpected removal of the original from Mr. Buat, where it was made from miniature by royal command; this was the reason that the portrait was never completed or paid for...” This passage is the main source from which information about Nattier's work on the portraits is drawn. He completely amazed me: based on Madame Toke’s data, the portrait remained “unfinished”, in it “only the head was done...”, but who did the rest? Who finally signed and dated the portrait? After all, it hangs on the wall, beautiful and complete, and with all its essence refutes the data of the artist’s daughter! Moreover, what does Mrs. Toke's last phrase mean about the original portrait seized from Buat? What are we talking about here? Or does madame just have this way of expressing herself? She perhaps wanted to say that the painting was the original for miniature copies of Buat? All this was more than mysterious and required the most serious consideration.

Since the painting is very famous, it is quite natural that I was not the first to explore it. First, I had to find out what my colleagues said about her.

Oddly enough, the contradictions between the data of the painting and the documents about it did not bother them at all.

Pierre de Nolac, who published a monograph on Nattier in 1905 ( P. de Nolhac. Nattier. Paris, 1905, p. 240.) and republished it in 1910 ( P. de Nolhac. Nattier. Paris, 1910, p.p. 25, 28.), in general, I was convinced that both the portrait of Peter and the portrait of Catherine were lost, although they were always in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace or, for a relatively very short time, in Tsarskoe Selo. Louis Reo, one of the most famous art historians in world science, who spent a long time in St. Petersburg, acted even more strangely: in 1922 he wrote a special article dedicated to the portraits of Peter and Catherine ( L. Reau. Portraits francais de Pierre le Grand. - “Gazette des Beaux - Arts”, 1922, p. 304.), reproducing a portrait of Catherine in it, obviously having received a photo from the Hermitage, and then with amazing credulity, without bothering himself with any doubts, he cited Ms. Toke’s text about the incompleteness of the portrait. He repeats this in his major work on French artists in Russia, where in the corresponding chapter he writes about Peter I, “who did not have the opportunity to exile a subject of the French king to Siberia for disobedience, confiscated the unfinished portrait of Catherine without paying for it” ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient. Paris, 1924, p. 84.). This approach to work amazed me. Further, wherever in the literature I came across a mention of the portrait of Catherine, it was always spoken about in the words of Madame Toke.

I had to plunge headlong into clarifying all these unexpected misunderstandings. First of all, I decided to engage in a careful analysis of Ms. Toke's text, and then compare it with some other source of the same time and, preferably, of the same nature.

Upon careful study of the text, the contradiction in it struck me: at the beginning of this passage Madame Toquet wrote: “He had barely finished the portrait when...” or “before he had time to finish the portrait,” which is a form of completed action, at the end In the same text, she argued that “the portrait was never finished,” that “only the head was completed.” This contradiction increased my doubts. And before I noticed it, it seemed to me that madam was, at best, confusing something, and at worst, conveying some kind of misinformation that she needed for a number of reasons, but after discovering this discrepancy, my suspicions intensified. I wanted to find those letters in which Catherine allegedly praised her portrait to Peter. I hoped that among the praise for the portrait I would find some elements of description. Having studied the “Correspondence of Russian Sovereigns” ( Letters from Russian sovereigns. Issue I. M., 1861-1862.), the publication is very complete and detailed, I was convinced that letters of such content were not published - obviously they did not exist. Considering, however, that any letter, even one written by the Russian Tsarina, could be lost, I did not base any assumptions on this shaky foundation.

I was also surprised by the fact that the unfinished portrait was with the miniaturist Buat to make miniatures from it. I have never heard of a miniaturist being given an unfinished portrait to copy in the early 18th century. This was inappropriate and contrary to all ideas of the time.

In the Hermitage there is a miniature of Catherine I by this particular master. Having familiarized myself with it, I was sadly convinced that it would not help dispel doubts - the field of the miniature covered only Catherine’s head. What remained below, whether there was an image of shoulders, chest, arms, dress, lace, jewelry, is unclear, since the image was cropped to the neck.

There was another way out - to look at the engraving from the portrait of Catherine. There was one and it was done by Dupin. Unfortunately, the portrait was not engraved immediately after the work was completed, but in 1775 ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient, p. 83.) and in 1776 ( D. A. Rovinsky. A detailed dictionary of Russian engraved portraits. St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 748.) years. The engraving was no different from our portrait, it exactly repeated it, and judging by it, there was no need to talk about its unfinished state. But the engraving could not serve as any proof of Madame Toquet's mistake. It was made many years after the portrait was painted, and during this time anyone could add to the image.

All conventional research methods turned out to be untenable; it was necessary to look for some other ways to achieve the truth. The case of the portrait being completed by another artist was, by the way, quite likely. In the workshops of fashionable portrait painters there were specialists in painting backgrounds, costumes, and even individual details. It is known that this is how Chardin began his career in the workshop of N. Coipel. The portrait might not have been painted from start to finish by Nattier, but it was necessary to know who completed it and when. Of course, the numerous attacks against Peter I, who allegedly did not pay for the painting, were also unpleasant, but in the end one could come to terms with this, just to know the truth.

With great interest, I plunged into French and Russian documents of the 18th century in order to find something useful for my topic.

The French memoirist Duclos, in his two-volume “Secret Memoirs” ( Duclos. Memoires secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. Paris, 1791, p. 230.) there was a description of the famous dinner given in honor of Peter by the Duke d'Antin. The portrait of Catherine did appear in it, but, from the author's point of view, it was not brought there by Peter, but was obtained somewhere by the Duke himself, who wanted to give Peter pleasure by contemplating the image his wife. In all likelihood, if the memoirist did not fantasize, the Duke obtained it from Buat, who made miniatures of it. By the way, this option seems more logical than the one in which Peter brings a portrait of his wife with him to the reception. Judging by the memoirs, Peter was pleasantly surprised by the appearance of the portrait and even regarded its appearance as a purely French courtesy of the owners. These words of Peter are cited in a number of sources on completely different occasions. A similar story with the appearance of the portrait at dinner is told by Saint-Simon ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient, p. 74.), only in his version, at a dinner with the Duke of Anten, but geographically in a different place, there was a portrait of Peter I himself, made in one hour by the artist Udri. Other eyewitnesses heard the same words from Peter’s lips when he was presented with a portrait made in his presence of a medal with his image, etc. It is extremely difficult to deal with memoirs, especially those that claim to be historical; you constantly need to be in a wary and distrustful state in relation to their authors. Therefore, in Duclos I did not pay attention to the interesting details and the fact that what Peter said, but took only one description: “The portrait of Catherine was placed in the dining room under a richly decorated canopy.” Imagining the customs of the French court of the early 18th century and its still quite strict etiquette, I cannot imagine how Duke d’Antin demonstrated there would be an unfinished portrait under a brocade canopy, in which only Catherine’s completed head would appear among a large empty canvas, even with a preliminary sketch of the composition. Such a violation of customs seems completely impossible to me. To be presented in such a ceremonial manner, the portrait had to be completed.

And, finally, the final confirmation of my assumptions is found in documents of a more “serious” nature, namely: in the correspondence of Peter and Catherine.

On May 2, 1717, Peter writes to Catherine from Paris: “The tapestry work here is very glorious, so they came to my portrait that Mop and his both painted, which Mop and the other that the Frenchman wrote... in order to do a few tapitsere work here, so same i fine small ones, because that master is still alive, who did it in England with me and now here... P.S. The French painter Natira came here along with his nephew or Orlikov, tell that painter to take with him the picture that he painted from the Battle of Levenhop ...” ( Letters from Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 95, 1717, 2/V.).

On May 15, Catherine responded to Peter’s request as follows: “...I sent the French painter Natier to your mercy with Orlikov, and with him my portrait, which he painted. And now I could not send the portraits of your friend and my friend, which More painted, because he took it upon himself to finish them, and as soon as he completes them, I will immediately send them by express to your mercy...” ( Letters from Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 217, 1717, 5/V.).

On May 19, Peter thanks his wife for the portrait she sent: “Thank you for sending the portraits (and not the hari, it’s just a pity that I’m old, the one who was sent said he was a nephew, otherwise it’s possible to inflict punishment for these words...)” ( Letters from Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 96, 1717, 19/V.).

From these letters, or more precisely from Catherine’s letter, one can draw a very clear conclusion: if the queen does not send Moor’s portraits, due to the fact that they are not ready and, naturally, are not suitable for copies in tapestry or in miniature, but sends them without any reservations The portrait was made by Nattier, which means it is completed and there can be no doubt about it. This is the most decisive among the arguments to refute the words of Madame Toquet. This is confirmed by the description of dinner at D'Anten's, in which nothing is written about the condition of the portrait.

My reasoning is also supported by an x-ray from the painting, which does not confirm the possibility of outside interference in the painting of the portrait. This argument was not primary for me in this case, since the X-ray image shows traces of severe damage to the painting, which interfere with its overall characterization. The totality of everything clarifies the solution to the issue. However, the complications with clarifying the fate of the portrait did not end there.

When I was looking through various sources of the 18th century, I looked into the most interesting collection of stories by J. Shtelin “Genuine anecdotes about Peter the Great” ( Ya. Shtelin. True jokes about Peter the Great. Moscow, 1820.). Shtelin himself did not know Peter. He wrote down his “anecdotes” from the words of people close to Peter, mainly from the stories of Nikita Obolensky. In one of the jokes ( Ya. Shtelin. Decree. cit., part I, pp. 93-96. It should be noted that in the book by G. K. Friedenburg “Portraits and other images of Peter the Great.” St. Petersburg, 1872, pp. 15-16, the author also states: “In addition to the portrait of the Emperor, he also described a copy of the portrait of the Empress, brought from St. Petersburg and... presented her sitting...”) Shtelin describes in detail Catherine's stay in The Hague, and how in that city the Frenchman Nattier painted her portrait based on... the original brought from St. Petersburg. This was just what I needed! My new task was to find out everything related to this version and then either accept it or reject it. The correspondence between Peter and Catherine did not seem to make it possible to agree with Shtelin, but there were no specific stories about the artist’s work. The expression “his portrait, which he (Nattier) painted” from Catherine’s letter could be used without great precision. Peter’s joke “it’s a pity that it’s old” also seemed to indicate that the portrait was painted from life, but Peter could have said this about any image of a different nature.

I had to look for what portraits of Catherine I could have been brought to Holland. Such a portrait existed and, according to the great expert on Russian engraving Rovinsky ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 743.), was actually sent to Holland. It was a portrait made in 1714 by Tanauer. Apparently, this portrait was not brought by Catherine, but was sent later for the specific purpose “for editing,” that is, for translation into an engraving. Apparently, this fact of bringing the portrait from St. Petersburg formed the basis of the legend created by Shtelin.

Having taken up the iconography of Catherine I more seriously, I was convinced from the same edition by Rovinsky that there was a portrait that almost exactly repeated the image of Catherine created by Nattier. I did not find the portrait itself, but the engraving from it. It depicts Catherine with the same facial expression and smile as in Nattier's portrait, with the same hairstyle with sideburns and ring-shaped curls, crowned with the same diadem. Catherine is wearing the same type of dress as in Nattier’s portrait, but not overloaded with embroidery and jewelry. The robe falls off the shoulders a little differently. The portrait is full-length, rather than half-length, and seems more intimate than ours. But that makes all the difference. One might think that this was a slight liberty of the engraver, who changed, as was often done, the costume of the woman depicted and the cut of the image, if not for Rovinsky’s message that this engraving is the work of the engraver Gubraken (Houbraken) from a portrait made by K. Moor ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 749.).

K. Moor, like Nattier, painted a portrait of Catherine in The Hague (Rovinsky mistakenly transferred the scene to Amsterdam.) You remember, it was this portrait that Catherine mentioned in her letter to Peter as unfinished. Upon completion, it was given, along with the portrait of Peter, to Houbraken for engraving. On December 24, 1717, Kurakin wrote to the Tsar that both portraits had been taken from the engraver and would be sent to Russia in March by land. Kurakin sent Peter test prints from the engraving boards “for testing.” Rovinsky does not know where the originals of Moor and the Houbraken boards went ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 750.). But what is more important for us at the moment is that in 1717 a portrait of Catherine was made, essentially repeating Nattier’s standard. This fact seems to finally explain Stehlin’s words about painting portraits based on the original. The old man, not being an eyewitness to the events himself and writing them down many years later, and even from hearsay, confused whether Nattier wrote from a model or whether his portrait serves as a model. He, apparently, also heard that Tanauer’s portrait was being sent to Holland, and combined all these different facts together. Thus, one could conclude that it is not recommended to particularly trust old sources.

I would not have made this sad conclusion if another thread had not broken, the strength of which I wanted to test.

Having become interested in the iconography of Catherine, I decided not only in relation to Nattier, but also in a broader sense, to extend my studies of her portraits.

I was naturally particularly interested in the portrait engraved by Houbraken and close to Nattier. This portrait, which Rovinsky writes as unconditionally Moor’s, turned out to not belong to him at all. N. I. Nikulina published an authentic portrait of Catherine by K. Moore ( N. I. Nikulina. Unpublished portrait of Catherine I by Karel Moor. - Messages State. Hermitage. L., 1958, No. 14, pp. 21-23.). There was a well-founded reattribution of a small oval portrait with a beautiful darkish gray-blue color scheme, Moore's signature and the date 1717. This portrait was acquired by the Hermitage and, after clearing, identified. It has nothing in common with Nattier’s portrait or Houbraken’s engraving; it reveals a completely different, somewhat colder understanding of the image. The portrait is restrained and a little dry.

Catherine I was clearly unlucky. A web of confusion shrouded all her portraits without exception. But if N.I. Nikulina dealt with Moor, and I, to some extent, with Nattier, then there still remained the portrait from which Houbraken’s engraving was made. Whose was this portrait, so similar to the large image of Nattier? As if some conclusions on this matter can be drawn from Rovinsky’s hint. He reports, without indicating his reasons: “... in Amsterdam (or, more precisely, The Hague - he confuses them. - I.N.) a portrait of her (Catherine I), painted by Arnold de Boonen, is shown, indistinguishable from Moor’s, engraved Gubraken" ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 744.).

Since there was a mistake with Moor’s portrait, we can assume that Houbraken’s original for the engraving was the portrait of A. Boonen.

Having come to this conclusion, I already considered the research completed, when suddenly I received new data that forced me to immediately begin to continue the work.

This new and very important data, which can easily fit on half a piece of paper, was brought to me by Vera Andreeva, an employee of the Pavlovsk Museum. She discovered them while working on her topic dedicated to the work of Russian artists of the 18th century. The chance find that she shared with me made it possible to clarify all the conclusions and draw new ones, which, from my point of view, explain everything.

These are the documents that excited me so much. These were extracts from the account books of Peter I for 1717: “...By order of Her Majesty, it was given to the French painter Nattier, who painted Her Majesty’s large persona in The Hague and another, small one - chervontsev...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. 4.).

“...By order of Her Majesty, it was given to the French painter Nattier, who in Amsterdam painted a portrait of Her Majesty, in addition to the 50 chervonets given to him - another fifty chervonets...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. 8.).

Under each of these documents there was a certificate of receipt of money, written in Nattier's hand and his signature. These documents revealed everything: the first “issue” told the whole story of the portrait in three lines. Nattier “painted the great person of Her Majesty in The Hague...” - this is, of course, our portrait. I tried to prove that it was completed, but here it is simply clear from the context. Madame Toquet and after her L. Reo and others accused Peter of not paying for the portrait; it now became clear that this was a lie.

There was also a third “issue”: “... July 1717, on the 19th day, to the painter Natey, who was in Holland, for a letter from the person of His Majesty and others in credit - red notes...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. 71.) - and again the artist’s signature.

This means that the portrait of Peter was paid for in Paris. A comparison of costs suggests that the portraits were paid equally: for the portrait of Catherine and another small one - 100 chervonets; for a portrait of Peter and “other things to count” - also 100 chervonets. The painter Nattier did not have any complaints against Peter.

Another secret was revealed: Nattier did not paint just one of our portraits of Catherine, but two of them - a large one and a small one. “Small” is the original engraving by Houbraken. By the way, it is very characteristic that the engraving does not have the signature of the artist, that is, Moor, but there is only one - the signature of the engraver Houbraken. The “small portrait” was apparently a smaller repetition of the large one, in which, as mentioned above, the artist left the head unchanged, but rewrote the costume and a number of details. Perhaps it, not so crushed and loaded, was made specifically for engraving by Houbraken. Such portraits, “simplified” for engraving, were made quite often in the 18th century.

Houbraken's engraving was haunted by the same demon of confusion as other portraits of Catherine. Its author was confused with extraordinary speed. Russian diplomats and art lovers also found foreign names rather difficult, and they rearranged them with ease.

The “issues” also unravel a number of other knots. Firstly, Staehlin turns out to be right when he said that Nattier wrote according to a model. The sample, however, was not delivered from St. Petersburg, as he believed (I still think that he was confused with Tanauer’s), but, of course, Nattier painted the second portrait based on the model of the first.

There is also an explanation for the not entirely clear phrase of Madame Toke, who claimed that Peter, angry with her father, ordered the “original portrait of the queen” to be removed from Buat’s workshop. It was about a large portrait of Catherine, which served as the original for other portraits.

These are the conclusions allowed to be drawn from documents that lay hidden for more than two hundred and fifty years. They all helped put it in its place, attribute the Houbraken engraving, and learn about the existence of another portrait of Nattier. Despite all my efforts, I have not yet been able to find the “little person” of Catherine by Nattier.

The personality of Peter 1 rightfully occupies one of the dominant places in the history of the Russian state. And the point is not even that it was this man who founded the Empire as such, but that during the reign of Peter, Russia received a completely new vector of development. Thousands of historical and biographical books have been written creating a portrait of Peter 1, but historians to this day cannot unambiguously characterize the activities of this man. Some of them deify the first Russian emperor, describing his innovations in the state system and foreign policy. Others, on the contrary, try to show him as a tyrant and despot, citing excessive harshness and cruelty towards his subjects. But the portrait of Peter 1, the photo of which is presented below, depicts a purposeful and educated man.

The first emperor is also criticized for ill-conceived innovations aimed, according to historians, at eradicating everything Russian, replacing it with Western values. However, both of them clearly agree on one thing: he was truly a controversial, significant and great figure in the history of the Russian state.

Judge not lest ye be judged

If you carefully study the historical portrait of Peter 1, created by the authors of countless works, you can come to a simple conclusion: such large-scale personalities cannot be judged one-sidedly. Strict distinctions like “white and black” are unacceptable here. In addition, in order to criticize or, conversely, praise, it is necessary to clearly understand the laws and foundations that existed at that time. And what sometimes seems wild and scary to our contemporaries was simple everyday life for different segments of the population of Russia at the beginning of the 18th century.

A portrait of Peter the Great cannot be drawn up using modern moral values. This approach will be “flat” and emotional. It will prevent a sober assessment of the historical reality of the Moscow State, and then the Russian Empire of the 18th century.

Therefore, you just need to try to objectively focus on a neutral biography of the first Russian emperor and everything that was connected with him. After all, such individuals, as a rule, leave a mark not only in politics and government.

Education is the basis of a future personality

Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov was born on May 30, 1672. Like all the royal offspring, the future sovereign received exclusively home education. And we must admit that, even by modern times, it was not bad. The teachers revealed in the boy a great inclination towards foreign languages ​​and exact sciences. In other words, the future emperor already from childhood combined humanitarian and technical aspirations. Although he still gave preference to practical sciences.

The youngest son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Natalya Naryshkina, little Peter, grew up as an amazingly active and strong child. In addition to his penchant for science, he enjoyed climbing fences, fighting with noble peers from his inner circle and committing other pranks characteristic of this age.

Handicraft is an occupation worthy of kings

All biographers without exception have always been especially surprised by the tsar’s son’s passion for simple working crafts, in which he showed interest at a very young age. Not a single historical portrait of Peter 1 is complete without a description of how he could spend hours watching the work of a lathe or happily breathe in the hot fumes of the palace forge.

The interest of the royal son did not go unnoticed. Special craftsmen were assigned who began to teach Peter the basics of the simplest crafts: turning and forging. It must be taken into account that this did not come at the expense of the young heir’s main academic schedule. The exact sciences, the study of languages, and the basics of military affairs have not been canceled. From early childhood, the future sovereign received a comprehensive and high-quality education (contrary to the opinion of some Western historians that home education in Russia in those years was characterized by one-sidedness and unprofessionalism).

However, you would never call the emperor a “simpleton”, looking at how the artist Antropov painted the portrait of Peter 1: the royal regalia, posture and look speak of a great and powerful man. And even though at the time of the creation of the picture the emperor had been dead for almost 50 years, the author depicted him very reliably.

Coronation and exile

The political portrait of Peter 1 should begin to be painted in 1682. After the death of the childless Tsar, young Romanov was elevated to the throne. However, this happened bypassing his older brother Ivan, which the Miloslavsky party (relatives of Peter’s older sister Sophia) did not fail to take advantage of to organize a palace coup. The Miloslavskys successfully used the Streltsy unrest, and as a result, the Naryshkin clan, to which Peter’s mother belonged, was almost destroyed. Ivan was appointed “senior” king, and Sophia became the ruler-regent.

The Streltsy revolt and the outright cruelty of the murders had a very serious impact on the personality of Peter the Great. Many historians associate the further, not always balanced, actions of the tsar with these events.

Sophia, having become the sole mistress of the country, practically exiled the little king to Preobrazhenskoye, a small fiefdom near Moscow. It was here that Peter, having gathered the noble ignoramuses of his inner circle, created the famous “amusing regiments”. Military formations had real uniforms, officers and soldiers and were subject to real army discipline. Peter, of course, was the commander-in-chief. To entertain the young king, a “amusing fortress” was built, which, honing their “combat skills,” was stormed by the amusing army. However, few people then guessed that it was this childish fun of boys running around with wooden guns and sabers that would lay the foundation for the famous and formidable Peter's Guard.

Not a single portrait of Peter 1 is complete without mentioning Alexander Menshikov. They met there, in Preobrazhenskoye. The groom's son in subsequent years became the emperor's right-hand man and one of the most powerful men in the Empire.

Miloslavsky's coup

The weakness and illness of the “senior” Tsar Ivan constantly forced the ruler Sophia to think about complete autocracy in the country. Surrounded by nobles from the powerful Miloslavsky clan, the ruler was fully confident that she would be able to usurp power. However, Peter stood in the way of the throne. He was God's anointed and rightful king.

In August 1689, Sophia decided to stage a coup d'état, the purpose of which was to eliminate Peter and seize the throne. However, faithful people warned the young tsar, and he managed to leave Preobrazhenskoye, taking refuge in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The monastery was not chosen by chance. Powerful walls, ditches and underground passages presented an insurmountable barrier for Sophia’s foot archers. According to all the rules of military science, Sophia had neither the time nor the means to carry out an assault. In addition, the elite command of the Streltsy units openly hesitated, not knowing which side to choose.

Who made the decision to retreat specifically to Trinity-Sergievo? Not a single historical portrait of Peter 1 mentions this. In short, this place turned out to be fatal for Sophia and very successful for the king. The nobles supported Peter. Combat detachments of the noble cavalry and infantry of the “amusing” and faithful archers surrounded Moscow. Sophia was convicted and imprisoned in a monastery, and all associates from the Miloslavsky clan were executed or exiled.

After the death of Tsar Ivan, Peter became the sole owner of the Moscow throne. Perhaps it was the events described that prompted him to seriously reorganize the entire Russian way of life. After all, representatives of the “good old time” in the person of the Streltsy and Miloslavskys constantly tried to physically eliminate the young sovereign, instilling in him a subconscious fear, which, as contemporaries who painted Peter 1 claimed, was reflected on his face and haunted him in his soul almost until his death. Even painters noticed and recreated the unusually strong, but at the same time extremely tired face of the king. The artist Nikitin, whose portrait of Peter 1 is surprising in its simplicity and absence of imperial paraphernalia, conveyed precisely such a strong-willed and powerful, but deeply sincere person. True, art critics are inclined to “take away” part of Nikitin’s fame, citing a drawing style that was uncharacteristic for the beginning of the century.

Window to Europe - German settlement

Against the background of these events, the young tsar’s aspirations for everything European look quite natural. One cannot fail to note the role of Kukui, a German settlement that the emperor loved to visit. The friendly Germans and their neat way of life differed sharply from what Peter saw in the rest of Moscow. But the point, of course, is not about neat houses. The Emperor became imbued with the very way of life of this small piece of Europe.

Many historians believe that it was Kukui’s visit that partly shaped the historical portrait of Peter 1. In short, future pro-Western views. We must not forget about the acquaintances the tsar made on the German reservation. There he met a retired Swiss officer who became the main military adviser, and the charming future favorite of the first emperor. Both of these people played an important role in the history of Russia.

Access to the sea is a strategic task

Peter is becoming more and more interested in the fleet. Specially hired Dutch and English craftsmen teach him the tricks and intricacies of ship construction. In the future, when multi-gun battleships and frigates will sail under the Russian flag, Peter will need his knowledge of the nuances of shipbuilding more than once or twice. He identified all defects and defects in construction himself. It was not for nothing that he was called the Tsar Carpenter. Peter 1 could really build a ship from stem to stern with his own hands.

However, during his youth, the Moscow state had only one access to the sea - in the city of Arkhangelsk. European ships, of course, called at this port, but geographically the place was too unfavorable for serious trade relations (due to the long and expensive delivery of goods deep into Russia). This thought, of course, visited not only Pyotr Alekseevich. His predecessors also fought for access to the sea, mostly unsuccessfully.

Peter the Great decided to continue the Azov campaigns. Moreover, the war with Turkey, which began in 1686, continued. The army, which he trained in the European way, was already an impressive force. Several military campaigns were made against the sea city of Azov. But only the latter was successful. True, the victory came at a high price. A small fortress, but built at that time according to the latest engineering ideas, claimed many Russian lives.

And although the fact of the capture of Azov in Europe was perceived quite skeptically (precisely because of the ratio of losses), this was the first real strategic victory of the young tsar. And most importantly, Russia finally gained access to the sea.

North War

Despite the outright skepticism of European politicians, Peter 1 begins to think about the Baltic. The ruling elite at that time was seriously concerned about the growing ambitions of another young strategist - This is partly why the Europeans supported the Moscow Tsar in his desire to obtain part of the coastal Baltic lands to open shipyards and ports there. It seemed that it was quite possible for Russia to have two or three ports, and the inevitable war for the Baltic would seriously weaken Sweden, which, although it would defeat the weak Russians, would be seriously bogged down in the mainland of wild Muscovy.

Thus began the long Northern War. It lasted from 1700 to 1721 and ended with the unexpected defeat of the Swedish army near Poltava, as well as the establishment of the Russian presence in the Baltic.

Reformer

Of course, without serious economic and political changes in Russia, Peter 1 would not have cut through the famous “window to Europe.” The reforms affected literally the entire way of life of the Moscow state. If we talk about the army, then it received its formation precisely in the Northern War. Peter found resources for its modernization and organization according to the European model. And if at the beginning of hostilities the Swedes were dealing with unorganized, often poorly armed and untrained units, then at the end of the war it was already a powerful European army that knew how to win.

But it was not only the personality of Peter the Great, who possessed remarkable talent as a commander, that allowed him to win a great victory. The professionalism of his closest generals and devotees is a topic for long and meaningful conversations. Entire legends are written about the heroism of a simple Russian soldier. Of course, no army could win without a serious rear. It was military ambitions that spurred the economy of old Russia and brought it to a completely different level. After all, the old traditions could no longer fully meet the needs of the growing army and navy. Almost every portrait of Peter 1 during his lifetime depicts him in military armor or with military paraphernalia. The artists paid tribute to the emperor's merits.

Not by an army alone

The portrait of Peter 1 will not be complete if we limit ourselves only to economic and military victories. The Emperor must be given credit for developing and implementing reforms in the field of government. First of all, this is the establishment of the Senate and collegiums instead of the outdated Boyar Duma and orders working on the class principle.

The “Table of Ranks” developed by Peter gave rise to the emergence of so-called social elevators. In other words, the Table of Contents made it possible to receive benefits and nobility solely on merit. Changes also affected diplomacy. Instead of the ancient fur coats and hats of the noble boyars who represented Russia, embassies with diplomats of the European level appeared.

The description of the portrait of Peter 1 will be incomplete if we talk about it only in superlatives. It is worth noting that with the overall geopolitical growth of Russia, the life of ordinary people within the country has not changed much, and in some cases (for example, conscription) has become worse. The life of a simple serf was worth less than the life of a horse. This was especially noticeable during Peter’s “global” construction projects. Thousands of people died building the most beautiful city in Europe - St. Petersburg. No one counted the dead during the construction of the Ladoga Canal... And many young guys never became soldiers, dying under the sticks of officers introducing discipline in military units.

It is for his complete disregard for human life that the first emperor is criticized, accusing him of senseless cruelty and a huge number of unjustified victims. In addition, we are everywhere faced with facts of the activities of Peter 1 that are striking in their inhumanity.

There is only one thing that can be said in defense of this man. The first emperor of Russia never moved away from his people to the distances that subsequent rulers allowed themselves. A thousand times the enemy's cannonball could have torn him to pieces. Dozens of times Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov could simply drown on imperfect sea vessels. And during global construction projects, he slept in the same barracks with sick construction workers, risking contracting illnesses for which there were no cures at that time.

Of course, the emperor was protected from enemy bullets better than an ordinary soldier, he was treated by good doctors, and he had a much greater chance of not dying from the flu than an ordinary peasant. However, let's finish the description of the portrait of Peter 1 with a memory of the cause of his death. The emperor died from pneumonia, which he received while rescuing a simple guard soldier from the cold water that overflowed the banks of the Neva. A fact that may not be so remarkable in comparison with the actions of his entire life, but it speaks volumes. It is unlikely that any of the modern “powers of this world” are capable of such an act...

According to various sociological surveys, Peter I remains one of the most popular historical figures in our time. Sculptors still exalt him, poets compose odes to him, and politicians speak enthusiastically about him.

But did the real person Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov correspond to the image that, through the efforts of writers and filmmakers, was introduced into our consciousness?

Still from the film "Peter the Great" based on the novel by A. N. Tolstoy (Lenfilm, 1937 - 1938, director Vladimir Petrov,
in the role of Peter - Nikolai Simonov, in the role of Menshikov - Mikhail Zharov):

Let's start with the fact that the majority imagines Peter I to be absolutely different from what he really was.

According to the films, Peter is a huge man with a heroic physique and the same health.
In fact, with a height of 2 meters 4 centimeters (indeed, huge in those days, and quite impressive in our times), he was incredibly thin, with narrow shoulders and torso, a disproportionately small head and foot size (about size 37, and this is with so tall!), with long arms and spider-like fingers. In general, an absurd, awkward, clumsy figure, a freak of a freak.

The clothes of Peter I, preserved to this day in museums, are so small that there can be no talk of any heroic physique. In addition, Peter suffered from nervous attacks, probably of an epileptic nature, was constantly ill, and never parted with a traveling first aid kit containing many medications that he took daily.

Peter's court portrait painters and sculptors should not be trusted either.
For example, the famous researcher of the Peter I era, historian E. F. Shmurlo (1853 - 1934) describes his impression of the famous bust of Peter I by B. F. Rastrelli:

“Full of spiritual power, an unyielding will, a commanding gaze, an intense thought, this bust is related to Michelangelo’s Moses. This is a truly formidable king, capable of causing awe, but at the same time majestic and noble.”

This more accurately conveys the appearance of Peter plaster mask taken from his face in 1718 the father of the great architect - B. K. Rastrelli , when the tsar was conducting an investigation into the treason of Tsarevich Alexei.

This is how the artist describes it A. N. Benois (1870 - 1960):“At this time, Peter’s face became gloomy, downright terrifying in its menacingness. One can imagine what impression this terrible head, placed on a gigantic body, must have made, with darting eyes and terrible convulsions that turned this face into a monstrously fantastic image.”

Of course, the real appearance of Peter I was completely different from what appears before us on his ceremonial portraits.
For example, these:

Portrait of Peter I (1698) by a German artist
Gottfried Kneller (1648 - 1723)

Portrait of Peter I with the insignia of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called (1717)
works by the French painter Jean-Marc Nattier (1685 - 1766)

Please note that between the painting of this portrait and the making of Peter’s lifetime mask
Rastrelli was only a year old. Are they really similar?

Most popular currently and highly romanticized
in accordance with the time of creation (1838) portrait of Peter I
works by the French artist Paul Delaroche (1797 - 1856)

Trying to be objective, I cannot help but note that monument to Peter I , works of sculptor Mikhail Shemyakin , made by him in the USA and installed in the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1991 , also little corresponds to the real image of the first Russian emperor, although, quite possibly, the sculptor sought to embody that same "monstrously fantastic image" , which Benoit spoke about.

Yes, Peter's face was made from his death wax mask (cast by B.K. Rastrelli). But Mikhail Shemyakin consciously, achieving a certain effect, increased the proportions of the body by almost one and a half times. Therefore, the monument turned out to be grotesque and ambiguous (some people admire it, while others hate it).

However, the figure of Peter I himself is very ambiguous, which is what I want to tell everyone who is interested in Russian history.

At the end of this part about another myth concerning death of Peter I .

Peter did not die from catching a cold while saving a boat with drowning people during a flood in St. Petersburg in November 1724 (although such a case actually happened, and it led to an exacerbation of the Tsar’s chronic illnesses); and not from syphilis (although from his youth Peter was extremely promiscuous in his relationships with women and had a whole bunch of sexually transmitted diseases); and not because he was poisoned with some “specially gifted sweets” - all these are widespread myths.
The official version, announced after the death of the emperor, according to which the cause of his death was pneumonia, does not stand up to criticism either.

In fact, Peter I had advanced inflammation of the urethra (he suffered from this disease since 1715, according to some sources, even since 1711). The disease worsened in August 1724. The attending physicians, the Englishman Horn and the Italian Lazzaretti, tried unsuccessfully to cope with it. From January 17, 1725, Peter no longer got out of bed; on January 23, he lost consciousness, to which he never returned until his death on January 28.

"Peter on his deathbed"
(artist N. N. Nikitin, 1725)

Doctors performed the operation, but it was too late; 15 hours after the operation, Peter I died without regaining consciousness and without leaving a will.

So, all the stories about how at the last moment the dying emperor tried to write his last will on his will, but only managed to write "Leave everything..." , are also nothing more than a myth, or if you want, a legend.

In the next short part so as not to make you sad, I’ll give you historical anecdote about Peter I , which, however, also refers to the myths about this ambiguous personality.

Thank you for attention.
Sergey Vorobiev.

Lifetime portraits of Peter I

PETER I

Peter I the Great (1672-1725), founder of the Russian Empire, occupies a unique place in the history of the country. His deeds, both great and terrible, are well known and there is no point in listing them. I wanted to write about the lifetime images of the first emperor, and which of them can be considered reliable.

The first known portrait of Peter I is placed in the so-called. "Tsar's Titular Book" or "The Root of Russian Sovereigns", a richly illustrated manuscript created by the embassy order as a reference book on history, diplomacy and heraldry and containing many watercolor portraits. Peter is depicted as a child, even before ascending the throne, apparently at the end. 1670s - early 1680s. The history of this portrait and its authenticity are unknown.

✂…">
Portraits of Peter I by Western European masters:

1685- engraving from an unknown original; created in Paris by Larmessen and depicts Tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseevich. The original was brought from Moscow by ambassadors - Prince. Ya.F. Dolgoruky and Prince. Myshetsky. The only known reliable image of Peter I before the coup of 1689.

1697- Portrait of work Sir Godfrey Kneller (1648-1723), the court painter of the English king, was undoubtedly painted from life. The portrait is in the English royal collection of paintings, at Hampton Court Palace. The catalog notes that the background of the painting was painted by Wilhelm van de Velde, a marine painter. According to contemporaries, the portrait was very similar; several copies were made from it; the most famous, the work of A. Belli, is in the Hermitage. This portrait served as the basis for the creation of a huge number of very different images of the king (sometimes faintly similar to the original).

OK. 1697- Portrait of work Pieter van der Werff (1665-1718), the history of its writing is unknown, but most likely it happened during Peter’s first stay in Holland. Purchased by Baron Budberg in Berlin and presented as a gift to Emperor Alexander II. It was located in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace, now in the State Hermitage.

OK. 1700-1704 engraving by Adrian Schonebeck from a portrait by an unknown artist. Original unknown.

1711- Portrait by Johann Kupetsky (1667-1740), painted from life in Carlsbad. According to D. Rovinsky, the original was in the Braunschweig Museum. Vasilchikov writes that the location of the original is unknown. I reproduce the famous engraving from this portrait - the work of Bernard Vogel, 1737.

A converted version of a portrait of this type depicted the king in full growth and was located in the hall of the General Assembly of the Governing Senate. Now located in the Mikhailovsky Castle in St. Petersburg.

1716- portrait of work Benedicta Cofra, court painter of the Danish king. It was most likely written in the summer or autumn of 1716, when the Tsar was on a long visit to Copenhagen. Peter is depicted wearing St. Andrew's ribbon and the Danish Order of the Elephant around his neck. Until 1917 it was in Peter's Palace in the Summer Garden, now in the Peterhof Palace.

1717- portrait of work Carla Moora, who wrote to the king during his stay in The Hague, where he arrived for treatment. From the correspondence of Peter and his wife Catherine, it is known that the Tsar really liked the portrait of Moor and was bought by the prince. B. Kurakin and sent from France to St. Petersburg. I will reproduce the most famous engraving - the work of Jacob Houbraken. According to some reports, Moore's original is now in a private collection in France.

1717- portrait of work Arnold de Gelder (1685-1727), Dutch artist, student of Rembrandt. Written during Peter's stay in Holland, but there is no information that it was painted from life. The original is in the Amsterdam Museum.

1717 - Portrait of the work Jean-Marc Nattier (1686-1766), a famous French artist, was written during Peter’s visit to Paris, undoubtedly from life. It was purchased and sent to St. Petersburg, and later hung in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace. Now it is in the Hermitage, however, there is no complete certainty that this is an original painting and not a copy.

At the same time (in 1717 in Paris), the famous portrait painter Hyacinthe Rigaud painted Peter, but this portrait disappeared without a trace.

Portraits of Peter, painted by his court artists:

Johann Gottfried Tannauer (1680-c1737), Saxon, studied painting in Venice, court artist from 1711. According to entries in the "Jurnal" it is known that Peter posed for him in 1714 and 1722.

1714(?) - The original has not survived, only the engraving made by Wortmann exists.

A very similar portrait was recently discovered in the German city of Bad Pyrmont.

L. Markina writes: “The author of these lines introduced into scientific circulation an image of Peter from the collection of the palace in Bad Pyrmont (Germany), which recalls the visit of this resort town by the Russian emperor. The ceremonial portrait, which bore the features of a natural image, was considered the work of an unknown artist XVIII century.At the same time, the expression of the image, the interpretation of details, and baroque pathos betrayed the hand of a skilled craftsman.

Peter I spent June 1716 undergoing hydrotherapy in Bad Pyrmont, which had a beneficial effect on his health. As a token of gratitude, the Russian Tsar presented Prince Anton Ulrich Waldeck-Pyrmont with his portrait, which had been in private possession for a long time. Therefore, the work was not known to Russian specialists. Documentary evidence detailing all the important meetings during the treatment of Peter I in Bad Pyrmont did not mention the fact of his posing for any local or visiting painter. The Russian Tsar's retinue numbered 23 people and was quite representative. However, in the list of persons accompanying Peter, where the confessor and cook were indicated, the Hofmaler was not listed. It is logical to assume that Peter brought with him a finished image that he liked and reflected his idea of ​​the ideal monarch. Comparison of engravings by H.A. Wortman, which was based on the original brush by I.G. Tannauer 1714, allowed us to attribute the portrait from Bad Pyrmont to this German artist. Our attribution was accepted by our German colleagues, and the portrait of Peter the Great as the work of I. G. Tannauer was included in the exhibition catalogue."

1716- The history of creation is unknown. By order of Nicholas I, it was sent from St. Petersburg to Moscow in 1835, and was kept rolled up for a long time. A fragment of Tannauer's signature has survived. Located in the Moscow Kremlin Museum.

1710s Profile portrait, previously mistakenly considered to be the work of Kupetsky. The portrait was damaged by an unsuccessful attempt to renew the eyes. Located in the State Hermitage.

1724(?), Equestrian portrait, called "Peter I in the Battle of Poltava", purchased in the 1860s by Prince. A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky from the family of the deceased chamber-fourier in a neglected state. After cleaning, Tannauer's signature was discovered. Now located in the State Russian Museum.

Louis Caravaque (1684-1754), a Frenchman, studied painting in Marseilles, became a court painter in 1716. According to contemporaries, his portraits were very similar. According to the entries in the "Jurnal", Peter painted from life in 1716 and in 1723. Unfortunately, the indisputable original portraits of Peter painted by Caravaque have not survived; only copies and engravings from his works have reached us.

1716- According to some information, it was written during Peter’s stay in Prussia. The original has not survived, but there is an engraving by Afanasyev, from a drawing by F. Kinel.

A not very successful copy from this portrait (added by ships of the allied fleet), created by an unknown person. artist, is now in the collection of the Central Naval Museum of St. Petersburg. (D. Rovinsky considered this painting to be original).

A version of the same portrait, which came to the Hermitage in 1880 from the Velika Remeta monastery in Croatia, probably created by an unknown German artist. The king's face is very similar to that painted by Caravaque, but the costume and pose are different. The origin of this portrait is unknown.

1723- the original has not survived, only an engraving by Soubeyran exists. According to "Jurnal", written during the stay of Peter I in Astrakhan. The last lifetime portrait of the Tsar.

This portrait of Caravacca served as the basis for a painting by Jacopo Amiconi (1675-1758), written around 1733 for the prince. Antioch Cantemir, which is located in the Peter's throne room of the Winter Palace.

* * *

Ivan Nikitich Nikitin (1680-1742), the first Russian portrait painter, studied in Florence, became the tsar's court artist around 1715. There is still no complete certainty about which portraits of Peter were painted by Nikitin. From "Jurnale" it is known that the tsar posed for Nikitin at least twice - in 1715 and 1721.

S. Moiseeva writes: “There was a special order from Peter, which ordered persons from the royal entourage to have his portrait by Ivan Nikitin in their house, and to charge the artist one hundred rubles for the execution of the portrait. However, royal portraits that could be compared with the creative handwriting I. Nikitin, almost did not survive. On April 30, 1715, the following was written in the “Journal of Peter”: “Ivan Nikitin painted His Majesty’s half persona.” Based on this, art historians were looking for a half-length portrait of Peter I. In the end, it was suggested that this the portrait should be considered “Portrait of Peter against the backdrop of a naval battle" (Tsarskoe Selo Museum-Reserve). For a long time, this work was attributed to either Caravaque or Tannauer. When studying the portrait by A. M. Kuchumov, it turned out that the canvas has three later binders - two above and one below, thanks to which the portrait became generational. A. M. Kuchumov cited the surviving account of the painter I. Ya. Vishnyakov about the addition to the portrait of His Imperial Majesty “against the portrait of Her Imperial Majesty.” Apparently, in the middle of the 18th century, the need arose to rehang the portraits, and I.Ya. Vishnyakov was given the task of increasing the size of the portrait of Peter I in accordance with the size of the portrait of Catherine. “Portrait of Peter I against the backdrop of a naval battle” is stylistically very close - here we can already talk about the iconographic type of I. N. Nikitin - the relatively recently discovered portrait of Peter from a Florentine private collection, painted in 1717. Peter is depicted in the same pose; noteworthy is the similarity in the writing of the folds and the landscape background."

Unfortunately, I could not find a good reproduction of “Peter against the backdrop of a naval battle” from Tsarskoye Selo (before 1917 in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace). I will reproduce what I managed to get. Vasilchikov considered this portrait to be the work of Tannauer.

1717 - Portrait attributed to I. Nikitin and located in the collection of the Financial Department of Florence, Italy.

Portrait presented to Emperor Nicholas I c. S.S. Uvarov, who inherited it from his father-in-law, Gr. A.K. Razumovsky. Vasilchikov writes: “The legend of the Razumovsky family said that while Peter was in Paris, he went into the studio of Rigaud, who was painting a portrait of him, did not find him at home, saw his unfinished portrait, cut out his head from a large canvas with a knife and took it with him. gave it to his daughter Elizaveta Petrovna, and she, in turn, bestowed it on Count Alexei Grigorievich Razumovsky.” Some researchers consider this portrait to be the work of I. Nikitin. Until 1917 it was kept in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace; now in the Russian Museum.

Received from the Strogonov collection. In the Hermitage catalogs compiled in the mid-19th century, the authorship of this portrait is attributed to A.M. Matveev (1701-1739), however, he returned to Russia only in 1727 and could not paint Peter from life and, most likely, only made a copy from Moore's original for bar.S.G. Stroganov. Vasilchikov considered this portrait to be Moor’s original. This is contradicted by the fact that according to all surviving engravings from Moora, Peter is depicted in armor. Rovinsky considered this portrait to be Rigaud’s missing work.

References:

V. Stasov "Gallery of Peter the Great" St. Petersburg 1903
D. Rovinsky "Detailed dictionary of Russian engraved portraits" vol. 3 St. Petersburg, 1888
D. Rovinsky “Materials for Russian iconography” vol.1.
A. Vasilchikov "On portraits of Peter the Great" M 1872
S. Moiseev "On the history of the iconography of Peter I" (article).
L. Markin "RUSSIA of Peter's time" (article)